I can understand that the role of the CRS is to provide unbiased research to Congress for decision-making purposes. However, my short experience talking with CRS employees definitely made me think their policies went beyond workplace neutrality. It was pretty baldly stated during our discussion that if you had any sort of strong political leanings or a history of activism, they were not going to hire you (and they were going to find out about those things because, like all federal employees, you’d have an extensive background check done). I got completely turned off at the prospect, as did many of my friends who were present. A pity, because they’ve doubtlessly lost (and are continuing to lose) people who do good work.

If they can point out how sharing this hurts the author, in concrete real terms, then their argument has some merit.

Certainly. If I sneak into a musician’s house and take money of his wallet, this is no different from illegally downloading one of his songs. Both methods take money — property — away from its owner. That’s harm.

Most academic libraries have to sign a contract with the vendors (there’s still more than one vendor, right?) that severely limits access to the information. I only wish *any* of my alma maters could let me buy access.

I heard once of a professor who shared his password with students & colleagues on another continent so they could access databases provided by his university library. The VP of academic resources immediately labeled him the Global Village Idiot and changed his password.

We learn to share in kindergarten but the message we’ve internalized by the time we become professionals is that sharing is wrong. Bummer.

Mashable content and Creative Commons will be our resources in the future. Contributing, not just distributing will be the solution.

I’m amused by all the “crushes” in the previous post. And I can tell you that from here in economically crushed California, the phrase “rural Vermont” sounds like heaven.

It’s their property, not hers. They should be able to charge any price they want, or not even offer it for sale, should they desire.

No one is under any moral obligation to surrender their property for any reason. If you want it, buy it. If it’s not for sale, too bad.

And in our licenses, it’s called scholarly sharing. It’s perfectly legitimate for occasional use. Where you’d be violating the terms is if this were being done systematically to avoid paying for a subscription. (Not all licenses permit this, but my institution would not likely sign one that explicitly prohibited it.)